Is anyone going to fix metacritic?!?!?
PersianImm0rtal
Join Date: 2010-12-02 Member: 75414Members, Constellation, NS2 Map Tester
Join Date: 2010-12-02 Member: 75414Members, Constellation, NS2 Map Tester
<div class="IPBDescription">The mistake is actually extremely damaging to the game.</div>It bugs the hell out of me. Horrible review with a lot of vague and incorrect info.That 6/10 score by Gamespot was removed like a week ago, but it is still severely hurting Ns2's metacritic score. They finally made a new review and put up an 8/10 But still....
The mistake is actually extremely damaging to the game. You should do whatever you can to pull that grade off of metacritic.
The mistake is actually extremely damaging to the game. You should do whatever you can to pull that grade off of metacritic.
Comments
I can't believe salaries out there hinge on this spotty system.
Blame gamespot more for letting a freelance reviewer do something that they knew was an important 1-shot go.
For the record <a href="http://www.cbsinteractive.com/" target="_blank">CBS Interactive</a> is the owner of both companies. Perhaps a petition to them would get something done, but major companies are notoriously stubborn.
Are you sure about that ? Does someone knows anybody that gives a crap about metacritic?
Unfortunately, a lot of people give a crap about metacritic. <a href="http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/03/obsidian-entertainment-is-in-serious-trouble-thanks-to-stupid-goddamn-metacritic/" target="_blank">Example here.</a>
UW do <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=123912&view=findpost&p=2022910" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=2022910</a>
Hopefully UWE is not counting on a bonus from a publisher, so that should be fine.
They are their own publisher effectively, the problem is that the metacritic score is posted directly on their steam store page so naturally they would want it to reflect the actual reviews they received and not include the pulled gamespot review.
I'm also a bit surprised by people caring for something that is so obviously rotten.
It affects their sales.
How are you not drawing a correlation between a poor aggregate review on the largest review site and a decrease in sales?
I'm also a bit surprised by people caring for something that is so obviously rotten.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say we are enthusiasts so we are more likely to take a review or metacritic score with a grain of salt. For the larger portion of consumers they are more willing to trust these metrics as they are being presented as "experts."
Remember, just because you aren't "stupid" doesn't mean there aren't 1000 people willing to make up the difference.
How are you not drawing a correlation between a poor aggregate review on the largest review site and a decrease in sales?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, maybe nobody gives a crap about metacritic score ? That's a theory I elaborated from personal experience.
I wouldn't be surprised too see a correlation though, but there is a big confounding factor there that might make the causality hard to demonstrate.
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/135zrn/one_of_the_most_evil_organizations_in_gaming/" target="_blank">http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/135...ions_in_gaming/</a>
The big issues here are that Metacritics metrics system is private and not clearly visible, and thus highly vulnerable to corruption, and their policies do not allow journalists to make mistakes, they do not allow game developers to patch issues, and they just do not work well for gaming.
Raising awareness as a fan base is a start... We really need some large gaming journalists or public figures willing to tackle the issue as well.
AngryJoe - Check him out, does some stellar, top-quality reviews. Even though it's a long shot, I hope he does NS2. As with most "professional" reviews, I almost never take them seriously or to heart. Most of them are blatant lies for cash or convoluted without any clear distinction or relevance to the game itself. Actual gamers who know what makes an excellent game are far better.
On metacritic, just die in a fire. I've never touched that website until this recent Gamespot fiasco and I never intend to look at it again. The fact that arbitrary numbers are what makes or breaks a lot of games is disgusting.
There is a difference between revising scores, and canning a bad review. Metacritic need to recognize this in their policy.
I don't think it's hurting the game at all though, really. If you pay any attention at all, it's pretty easy to notice what's going on... I honestly don't think that having a 79/100 is gonna turn anyone off. I will agree that the game deserves a higher score in comparison to some of the other things on metacritic... this game is MUCH better than Tribes Ascend, which has a 86/100 some how :/
Which basically says, unlike other reviewing bodies that may issue a low rating, this particular review was pulled due to inaccuracy. At this point Metacritic is willfully publishing incorrect information, which could cause major financial harm to UWE.
Here's an interesting analysis of review scores vs sales and review scores vs player perception. If anything, people here are underestimating the impact this poor review score will have.
<a href="http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-power-of-review-scores-why-critics-have-more-control-than-we-think1" target="_blank">http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-a...-than-we-think1</a>
It could have potential to reach 85 with more reviews (may have been easier without the 60/100 though). I don't think it's in any danger of going above 90 though with or without that bad review.
<a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2" target="_blank">http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/natural-selection-2</a>
Its currently sitting at 79 with the only bad review coming from that bull###### Gamespot article which has since been removed. Is a 79 bad?
Review sites have been pretty much worthless for many years now.
Even though i know the background story about the 60 points review - at this very moment i would rate NS2 around 60 too, as it has connectivity and performance problems, which are unbearable for me.
Even though i know the background story about the 60 points review - at this very moment i would rate NS2 around 60 too, as it has connectivity and performance problems, which are unbearable for me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is, pretty much every game has this, where certain systems just do not like it for whatever reason. At a certain point you can't really blame the devs for it. It's the fault of PC as a computing standard. It's not fair to review a game badly because your system can't handle it for some unknown reason.
I know the feeling. I bought Civ 4 at launch price and it would reliably crash after 30 minutes. I had the same thing with skyrim until the patch that came out about a month and a half after release. It's REALLY ###### when that happens, but that's just the reality of being a PC gamer.
And your theory is obviously true, because you can know everybody and can read their minds.
Seriously, Metacritic is complete malarkey, ignore it until it doesn't matter any more.